On 11/5/2000 23:10, VosSedai at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Damn Carl thats a bit harsh no? I mean its tough admining a mailing list as
> well as everything else they do. Im on several ...Linux related mailing
> lists and you think this is bad you should see like the kernel and bug
> traq... but a
On 9/29/2000 02:50, Harshdeep S Jawanda at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero" wrote:
>
>> If we are gonna change to another place, I would ask help to GNU or
>> SourceForge, they
>> give lists to open source projects without ads.
>
> A good idea. Would anybody wan
>...but I bloody don't want to download it.
>There are those sitting on a t3...
Even on a T3, I still don't want to download (well, accept) SPAM
just on principle. BTW, I don't like egroups.com for a simpler
reason than advertisments. I just prefer .org and .edu domains
and think orginization
Harshdeep S Jawanda wrote:
> Other than the advertising (which we know can be done away with), nobody has come up
>with
> any good objections.
Propose to me how I can get the list information via egroups without
downloading the ads. It may be possible, I don't know. I know I can
strip it out
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Harshdeep S Jawanda wrote:
>
> ebi5 wrote:
>
> > Is this a joke? egroups sends an advertisement with every email. Which
> > makes every email they send half spam and half list mail.
>
> Are the responses to my posting a joke? Don't most of the people who
> responded in a s
On Fri 29-Sep-2000 at 03:10:30PM +0530, Harshdeep S Jawanda wrote:
> I really like the facilities that egroups provides me: w/o bothering
> the list admin/moderator, I can specify whether I want to get
> individual mail messages or to get daily digests or get no mail at all
> - read it on the web
"Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero" wrote:
> If we are gonna change to another place, I would ask help to GNU or SourceForge, they
> give lists to open source projects without ads.
A good idea. Would anybody want to try that out? In fact, why not start
thinking about
hosting Gimp at SourceFo
ebi5 wrote:
> Is this a joke? egroups sends an advertisement with every email. Which
> makes every email they send half spam and half list mail.
Are the responses to my posting a joke? Don't most of the people who responded in a
similar vein know that it is possible to remove ads from egroups.c
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Harshdeep S Jawanda wrote:
>
> Lea Anthony wrote:
>
> > I agree, this is better. Can we not get the s/w updated rather than miss out on
> > the list altogether?
>
> What advantages does hosting this list at the present site have vis. a vis. hosting
> this mailing list at e
hi,
> I've got to say that annoying as spam is htting the delete button isn't
> that hard :)
you obviously dont have to download around 500k of spam a day over a modem
link ;-)
at my work address, spam is just a 'd' key away. at home, my old and
trusted account has been picked up by more spam
Harshdeep S Jawanda wrote:
>
> Lea Anthony wrote:
>
> > I agree, this is better. Can we not get the s/w updated rather than miss out on
> > the list altogether?
>
> What advantages does hosting this list at the present site have vis. a vis. hosting
> this mailing list at egroups.com? egroups.co
I've got to say that annoying as spam is htting the delete button isn't
that hard :)
Tal
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:41:00 +0100 (BST), Alan Buxey said:
> hi,
>
> sorry, but if I keep getting SPAM from this mailling list (the last
> supposedly coming from "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" - it only takes
Alan Buxey wrote:
>
> hi,
>
> > egroups bad idea. too many ads
>
> I use the YAM mailer on my Amiga. its got an ARexx script which reoves the
> Ads as you download the mails - you never see them! ;-)
But you still download them. I don't want to waste the bandwidth.
>
> alan
--
Until later
Steve Rogers wrote:
>
> Just FYI, the ads can be removed for 48.00 per year.
>
> I would hazzard to guess that many would gladly chip in a coupl ebucks for that.
Nope, I don't pay extortion money.
>
> Harshdeep S Jawanda wrote:
>
> > Lea Anthony wrote:
> >
> > > I agree, this is better. Can
Harshdeep S Jawanda wrote:
>
> Lea Anthony wrote:
>
> > I agree, this is better. Can we not get the s/w updated rather than miss out on
> > the list altogether?
>
> What advantages does hosting this list at the present site have vis. a vis. hosting
> this mailing list at egroups.com? egroups.co
hi,
> egroups bad idea. too many ads
I use the YAM mailer on my Amiga. its got an ARexx script which reoves the
Ads as you download the mails - you never see them! ;-)
alan
Just FYI, the ads can be removed for 48.00 per year.
I would hazzard to guess that many would gladly chip in a coupl ebucks for that.
Harshdeep S Jawanda wrote:
> Lea Anthony wrote:
>
> > I agree, this is better. Can we not get the s/w updated rather than miss out on
> > the list altogether?
> -Original Message-
> From: Rebecca Jean Pedersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 12:38 PM
> To: Harshdeep S Jawanda
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: SPAM :-(
>
>
> egroups bad idea. too many ads
I'd be ha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2000-09-27 at 2214.14 +0530):
> What advantages does hosting this list at the present site have vis. a vis. hosting
> this mailing list at egroups.com? egroups.com offers all such facilities, plus all
> mails remain archived.
Advertisment? If we are gonna change to another plac
egroups bad idea. too many ads
Lea Anthony wrote:
> I agree, this is better. Can we not get the s/w updated rather than miss out on
> the list altogether?
What advantages does hosting this list at the present site have vis. a vis. hosting
this mailing list at egroups.com? egroups.com offers all such facilities, plus all
mail
I agree, this is better. Can we not get the s/w updated rather than miss out on
the list altogether?
-Lea.
Alan Buxey wrote:
> hi,
>
> > Yeah, me too. That's the second or third spam I've gotten now. Still, it's
> > not the lists fault...
>
> other lists operate on a 'subscriber only' basis an
hi,
> Yeah, me too. That's the second or third spam I've gotten now. Still, it's
> not the lists fault...
other lists operate on a 'subscriber only' basis and check the from/to
flags of posters.
alan
Yeah, me too. That's the second or third spam I've gotten now. Still, it's
not the lists fault...
-Lea.
Alan Buxey wrote:
> hi,
>
> sorry, but if I keep getting SPAM from this mailling list (the last
> supposedly coming from "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" - it only takes 2 seconds to
> look at the header
"John E. Vincent" wrote:
Could anyone verify that they got a spam message
about jobs from
[EMAIL PROTECTED]?
I read over the mail headers and here they are:
eturn-Path:
Received:
(from root@localhost)
by godspeed.lusis.org (8.9.3/8.8.7) id
QAA07637 for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; M
Another mailing list I was on had trouble with spam, so the administrator
configured it not to accept mail from non-members, which seemed to work
pretty well. Is that possible here, and is there anybody who would object?
Ian
On 2/14/2000 15:00, John E. Vincent at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Could anyone verify that they got a spam message about jobs from
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]?
Yep. I sent a note to abuse.net about it who then directed it to berkeley. I
also sent a note to another domain about the same message.
--
___
The real IP is 209.30.75.94. There is no problem with sending an email to
postmaster or abuse or somesuch at flash.net. As a matter of fact this
sort of thing is probably much more effective than filters in the long run
because you make operators of open relays aware that they are operating
same.
28 matches
Mail list logo
